The animal sacrifices NEVER removed sin. Ever. They were always symbolic.
There is no impediment for Christ continuing the symbolism....unless one is a member of PETA, of course. :>)
While that is an important discussion, Jude, more important is when one recognizes that the other side doesn't build its arguments on a whim, but on scripture combined with a healthy dose of reflection.
You say that you have scriptural reasons for heading toward amillennialism. That's good. Others have scriptural reasons for staying with premillennialism.
To recognize the good scriptural motives of the other is important with eschatology. One wise man I read recently summed it up as we are best when we recognize that all schools of eschatology are dealing with "probabilities."
That's an excruciatingly honest appraisal.
That's certainly true, if a little post-modern. Our understandings of the Scriptures are tinged with our preconceptions and biases.
The animal sacrifices NEVER removed sin. Ever. They were always symbolic. There is no impediment for Christ continuing the symbolism
Except Heb. 9 is crystal clear that there are no more sin offerings. To interpret Ezek. 40-48 as literally as you and Dan do, you must assume that there are still some sin offerings. There is no conceivable middle ground.